Judge Martha K. Gooding, Case 20220-01172587 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 20220-01172587, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Enforce Judgment

The Motion by Plaintiff Nayereh Amjadi (“Plaintiff”) to enforce judgment against Defendants Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Fletcher Jones Motorcars (collectively, “Defendants”) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are overruled.

Defendants, through prior counsel, on 12/20/20 served a 998 offer to settle the action for a payment of $20,000, with Plaintiff to make a motion for fees and costs if the parties did not further agree on the amount of fees and costs payable. The offer provided for judgment to be entered. Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s 998 offer on 2/8/21. [Mkrdech Decl., ¶¶ 2-3 and Ex. A.] On 3/11/21, Defendant sent the check for $20,000, which Plaintiff deposited. [Mkrdech Decl., ¶ 5.] Plaintiff did not file a notice of the 998 offer and acceptance with the court. [Ayzen Decl., ¶4.]

Then Defendants changed counsel. According to current counsel, when the file for this case was sent to it, the 998 offer (and acceptance) was not in the file – so counsel did not know that a 998 offer had been served and accepted. [Ayzen Decl., ¶ 5.]

On 7/26/21, Defendants, through their new counsel, then sent another 998 offer: this one was for $30,000 on the merits and $15,000 for fees and costs. This offer did not provide for judgment to be entered. On 8/27/21, Plaintiff accepted. [Mkrdech Decl., ¶¶ 6-7 and Ex. B. Ayzen Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.] Defendant sent a check for $45,000. [Mkrdech Decl., ¶ 8.]

On 10/22/21, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement. [ROA #44.] Then, on 11/16/22, he filed a notice of acceptance of 998 offer as to the second 998 offer. [ROA #56.] On 7/15/22, he filed an amended notice of acceptance asking that judgment be entered. [ROA #73.] Defendant objected. [ROA #76.]

Plaintiff contends that the second 998 offer and acceptance supersedes the prior offer and acceptance, and it is therefore the settlement; thus, Plaintiff contends he is entitled to a total of $45,000 from Defendants. Because Plaintiff already deposited the $20,000 check, he is holding onto the $45,000 check (since it would be too much in addition to the $20,000 check that he already deposited) and wants Defendants to send him a check for the remaining $25,000. [Notice of Motion at 2:12-16.]

Although Plaintiff describes this as a motion to enforce judgment, this is a motion to enforce a settlement. A motion to enforce a settlement pursuant to a 998 offer and acceptance is a motion to enforce settlement governed by Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6. Poster v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 266; Cal. Civ. Prac. Procedure § 20:7.

Section 664.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) provides: “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties [which as of 1/1/21 includes when the writing is signed by the party’s attorney] outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

The elements that must be met pursuant to CCP section 664.6 are as follows:

There is a valid and binding settlement agreement of all or part of the case;
The parties agreed to all material settlement terms;
If it is a written stipulation, the writing is signed by both parties (which includes counsel who represents the party);
The settlement agreement was made pending litigation;
A Motion to Enforce is made.

CCP § 664.6; TRG CIVP 12:952.1- 955.5.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CONTRACT. It is essential to the existence of a contract that there should be:

1. Parties capable of contracting;

2. Their consent;

3. A lawful object; and,

4. A sufficient cause or consideration.

Civ. Code § 1550.

“ ‘A settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles [that] apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts.’ [Citation.] Its validity is thus ‘judged by the same legal principles applicable to contracts generally.’ [Citations.]” (Stewart v. Preston Pipeline Inc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1565, 1585, 36 Cal.Rptr.3d 901 (Stewart).) The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract include the existence of a contract, the plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, the defendant's breach, and resulting damages to the plaintiff. (CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 667.) The first element—the existence of a contract—requires parties capable of contracting, their consent, a lawful object, and a sufficient cause or consideration. (Civ. Code, § 1550.)

J.B.B. Investment Partners Ltd. v. Fair (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1, 9.

Here, Defendant made an offer of settlement that Plaintiff expressly accepted: in exchange for $20,000 and fees and costs in an amount to be determined by motion, Plaintiff agreed to dismiss this case. [Mkrdech Decl., Ex. A; Ayzen Decl., Ex. A.]

At that point, a contract was formed. Indeed, it was partially performed as Defendant paid the $20,000 and Plaintiff deposited the funds. The fact that Plaintiff did not file the notice of acceptance with the court does not mean a contract was not formed. Neither the offer nor the acceptance was made conditional on the filing of notice. Each was unconditional and unequivocal. As explained in J.B.B. Investment Partners Ltd. v. Fair (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1, 12: “[T]he fact that plaintiffs planned to follow up with a formal written agreement, which they did on July 11, 2013, does not render the earlier agreement invalid, given the parties' communications on July 4 and 5, which demonstrated their intent to be bound by the terms of the July 4 offer.”

Under this contract, it appears Plaintiff has a choice: to seek entry of judgment reflecting the contract terms, or to dismiss the action once it receives payment of the agreed-upon $20,000, plus the amount of fees and costs determined per motion.

So when Defendants sent a second 998 offer, Plaintiff had already entered into a binding agreement to dismiss his case (or have judgment entered) on the specified terms: payment of $20,000 and an award of costs in an amount either agreed on by the parties or determined by the Court. So while Plaintiff purported to accept the offer, he did not provide consideration. No contract was formed, much less one that somehow “superseded” the binding contract the parties had previously entered into.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for order requiring Defendants to pay him $25,000 more pursuant to the second 998 offer is DENIED.

As for a motion to determine the amount of attorneys’ fees and cost pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, Plaintiff may reserve a date and file his motion in the ordinary course.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.